You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.
Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat.Text: 646-586-5283
In a medical emergency, call 911.
More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.
Research
30,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,651–1,675 of 1,906 studies in Treatments(page 67 of 77)· 30,980 in the whole library·How the 0–100 score works
Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)
From OpenAlex; 16,452 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
What “Treatments” covers
Treatments — Drug and non-drug treatment research — what was tested, in whom, and what changed — plus the approvals and coverage decisions that followed.
A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.
We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.
The crucial role of the cholinesterases in neural transmission makes them a primary target of a large number of cholinesterase-inhibiting drugs and toxins. 1 key finding →
A design strategy to convert a dual-binding site AChE inhibitor into triple functional compounds with promising in vitro profile against multifactorial syndromes, such as Alzheimer's disease, is proposed. 3 key findings →
The therapeutic arsenal for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains confined to a group of four inhibitors of AChE and one NMDA receptor antagonist, which are used to provide a relief of the very late symptoms of the dementia, i.e. the cognitive and functional decline. 5 key findings →
Recent phase 3 clinical trials have shown that memantine is effective in the treatment of both mild and moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease and possibly vascular dementia (multi-infarct dementia). 3 key findings →
The pathological processes of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases engender synaptic and neuronal cell damage. 1 key finding →
A new family of multitarget molecules able to interact with acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE), as well as with monoamino oxidase (MAO) A and B, has been synthesized. 1 key finding →
The therapeutic approach for improving the cognitive function in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is mainly based on the potentiation of central cholinergic activity and is achieved clinically by the use of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors such as tacrine, donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and other drugs currently in clinical trials. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·PubMed·1994-01-01
The pharmacological inhibition of excitatory amino acid neurotransmission has evolved to be a major topic in neuropharmacology since enhanced synaptic action of glutamate and possibly other related neurotransmitters has been suggested to play a role both in acute neurological conditions such as ischemia and epilepsy and in chronic degenerative neurological diseases including Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Stroke·2004-03-09
From a public health viewpoint, recognition of VCI before the development of dementia and correction of vascular burden on the brain may lead to a global decrease of incident dementia. 1 key finding →
In the year 1999, a vaccine approach was found to reduce amyloid deposits in transgenic mice overproducing the amyloid precursor protein. 1 key finding →
Recent studies that alleles in the hemochromatosis gene may accelerate the onset of Alzheimer's disease by five years have validated interest in the model in which metals (particularly iron) accelerate disease course. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100.·Immunotherapy·2012-02-01
The exact mechanisms leading to Alzheimer's disease (AD) are largely unknown, limiting the identification of effective disease-modifying therapies. 3 key findings →
Imaging agents capable of assessing amyloid-beta (Abeta) content in vivo in the brains of Alzheimer's disease (AD) subjects likely will be important as diagnostic agents to detect Abeta plaques in the brain as well as to help test the amyloid cascade hypothesis of AD and as an aid to assess the efficacy of anti-amyloid therapeutics currently under development and in clinical trials. 4 key findings →
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription
label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.
Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor,
and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a
scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the
difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself,
so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
Journal tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we
could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be
worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science,
Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed
journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the
tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a
missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores
zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and
the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed
article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or
a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not
work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by
that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is
reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out →
— four charts covering all 30,980 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap
bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on
stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of
it. It holds 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%),
plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here,
that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,042 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 of those are preprints posted before any
journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card
on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a
peer-reviewed article.